MT-SEN: Matt Rosendale (R) tells ridiculous lies about Sen. Jon Tester (D)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/21/matthew-rosendale/republican-senate-hopeful-claims-montana-sen-jon-t/

The fact that Rosendale has resorted to this sort of behavior just goes to show that Tester is a clear favorite to win re-election in '18.

[Mike Thick]

Unfortunately, as we saw last cycle, this kind of lie can be very influential now that fact-checkers have so little influence in the general population. Hopefully it doesn't work as well for Rosendale as it did for Trump.

[Xing]

(Implying people still care about the truth)

[Horus]

In a state like Montana, a lie like this could go a long way. Still, Tester is very well entrenched and I doubt he loses. At this point he's probably met with most of the state personally.

[Cactus Jack]

Somehow, I don't think this is going to work. Tester isn't quite as good with door-to-door retail politics as Heitkamp, but it's still his bread and butter, and I suspect Montanans will be more inclined to believe him than they will Rosendale.

[_]

Assault man said the same thing about Quist and won.  Still Tossup.

[Heisenberg]

Assault man said the same thing about Quist and won.  Still Tossup.

Yeah, don't underestimate him. In Montana, you need to define the opponent early, and I'm sure there's a decent amount of "hardcore Trumpists" here and all over the country who will believe stuff like this and not trust the fact checkers. I still feel good about this race, remember, Wulfric seems to just LOVE Tester.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, I agree with the analysis in this thread. This race is definitely Likely D now, and much closer to Safe D than Lean D. No way someone like Tester can lose, and all the Republican overconfidence here is definitely unwarranted.

Weren't you the one telling me I was too bullish on Tester in another thread? Your inconsistency is amusing.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, I agree with the analysis in this thread. This race is definitely Likely D now, and much closer to Safe D than Lean D. No way someone like Tester can lose, and all the Republican overconfidence here is definitely unwarranted.

Weren't you the one telling me I was too bullish on Tester in another thread? Your inconsistency is amusing.

He was being sarcastic. Seriously, you couldn't tell? Isn't that why he put the italics? I believe he's singling out people like you (without actually dropping any names) for being overconfident, as you have been about Tester for some time. Also, please name me one time where a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact sunk someone's campaign, because I can't think of any.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Yeah, I agree with the analysis in this thread. This race is definitely Likely D now, and much closer to Safe D than Lean D. No way someone like Tester can lose, and all the Republican overconfidence here is definitely unwarranted.

Weren't you the one telling me I was too bullish on Tester in another thread? Your inconsistency is amusing.

He was being sarcastic. Seriously, you couldn't tell? Isn't that why he put the italics? I believe he's singling out people like you (without actually dropping any names) for being overconfident, as you have been about Tester for some time. Also, please name me one time where a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact sunk someone's campaign, because I can't think of any.

Re: Italics = Sarcasm : Eh, maybe, maybe not. Obviously it's in your best interest to latch on to any remotely possible sign of sarcasm in any pro-Tester post here, so your judgment of MT's seriousness  is unreliable.

One lie often leads to another and another and another, which can sink a campaign. Just ask Michele Bachmann.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah, I agree with the analysis in this thread. This race is definitely Likely D now, and much closer to Safe D than Lean D. No way someone like Tester can lose, and all the Republican overconfidence here is definitely unwarranted.

Weren't you the one telling me I was too bullish on Tester in another thread? Your inconsistency is amusing.

He was being sarcastic. Seriously, you couldn't tell? Isn't that why he put the italics? I believe he's singling out people like you (without actually dropping any names) for being overconfident, as you have been about Tester for some time. Also, please name me one time where a "Pants on Fire" rating from Politifact sunk someone's campaign, because I can't think of any.

Re: Italics = Sarcasm : Eh, maybe, maybe not. Obviously it's in your best interest to latch on to any remotely possible sign of sarcasm in any pro-Tester post here, so your judgment of MT's seriousness  is unreliable.

One lie often leads to another and another and another, which can sink a campaign. Just ask Michele Bachmann.

Okay. Look, Michele Bachmann is a certified nutcase, and unlike Rosendale, her lies legitimately questioned the patriotism of Obama, and she jumped on the birther and "Obama is a socialist Kenyan Muslim" trains, and kept saying this over and over. Until I hear Rosendale say more, and go much crazier, I won't believe any of this. We'll see, for now, this seems like it'll remain just one thing he said in passing on a low-profile radio interview.

[Xing]

One lie often leads to another and another and another, which can sink a campaign. Just ask Michele Bachmann.

Or ask the biggest liar in the Western Hemisphere, who totally didn't win the presidency last year. Oh wait...

People who don't like Tester aren't going to suddenly start supporting him because his opponent lied. They're either going to believe that Rosendale's lies are the truth, or not care/rationalize supporting him by concluding that Tester is worse. And to be fair, the same is true for most of Tester's supporters. This race will be decided by single digits even if Rosendale runs a weak campaign.

[mcmikk]

(Implying people still care about the truth)